关于聚合过程结果的稳定性

IF 0.3 Q4 ECONOMICS
Д. С. Карабекян, Журнал Нэа, Д. С. Карабекян, Ниу Вшэ, Москва
{"title":"关于聚合过程结果的稳定性","authors":"Д. С. Карабекян, Журнал Нэа, Д. С. Карабекян, Ниу Вшэ, Москва","doi":"10.31737/2221-2264-2022-57-5-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Some distortions are possible in the process of preference aggregation. For example, one voter who is pivotal for some preference profile may not read instructions properly and accidently submit wrong preference. We study how different voting rules react to these distortions for three, four and five alternatives with computer modelling. One of the results is: contrary to the results for the degree of manipulability estimations the most stable rule is the rule that requires less information from preferences when calculating final results — threshold rule. With more alternatives the difference between this rule and rules that require information about the whole ranking is more visible. So, for the rules that require less information the probability to influence the results goes down when the number of alternatives increases. Another result: the resoluteness (weighted average number of alternatives in the final outcome) is positively correlated with the stability of aggregation procedures. Threshold rule is the best one for the most cases when we consider both stability and resoluteness.","PeriodicalId":43676,"journal":{"name":"Zhurnal Novaya Ekonomicheskaya Assotsiatsiya-Journal of the New Economic Association","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On the stability of results for aggregation procedures\",\"authors\":\"Д. С. Карабекян, Журнал Нэа, Д. С. Карабекян, Ниу Вшэ, Москва\",\"doi\":\"10.31737/2221-2264-2022-57-5-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Some distortions are possible in the process of preference aggregation. For example, one voter who is pivotal for some preference profile may not read instructions properly and accidently submit wrong preference. We study how different voting rules react to these distortions for three, four and five alternatives with computer modelling. One of the results is: contrary to the results for the degree of manipulability estimations the most stable rule is the rule that requires less information from preferences when calculating final results — threshold rule. With more alternatives the difference between this rule and rules that require information about the whole ranking is more visible. So, for the rules that require less information the probability to influence the results goes down when the number of alternatives increases. Another result: the resoluteness (weighted average number of alternatives in the final outcome) is positively correlated with the stability of aggregation procedures. Threshold rule is the best one for the most cases when we consider both stability and resoluteness.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43676,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Zhurnal Novaya Ekonomicheskaya Assotsiatsiya-Journal of the New Economic Association\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Zhurnal Novaya Ekonomicheskaya Assotsiatsiya-Journal of the New Economic Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31737/2221-2264-2022-57-5-2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zhurnal Novaya Ekonomicheskaya Assotsiatsiya-Journal of the New Economic Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31737/2221-2264-2022-57-5-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在偏好聚合的过程中可能存在一些扭曲。例如,一个对某些偏好配置文件至关重要的选民可能无法正确阅读说明,并意外地提交了错误的偏好。我们通过计算机建模研究了不同的投票规则对三、四和五种选择的这些扭曲的反应。其中一个结果是:与可操作程度估计的结果相反,最稳定的规则是在计算最终结果时需要较少的偏好信息的规则-阈值规则。有了更多的选择,这个规则和需要整个排名信息的规则之间的区别就更加明显了。因此,对于需要较少信息的规则,当选项数量增加时,影响结果的概率会下降。另一个结果是:决定论(最终结果中备选方案的加权平均值)与聚合过程的稳定性正相关。当我们同时考虑稳定性和决定论时,阈值规则是大多数情况下最好的规则。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
On the stability of results for aggregation procedures
Some distortions are possible in the process of preference aggregation. For example, one voter who is pivotal for some preference profile may not read instructions properly and accidently submit wrong preference. We study how different voting rules react to these distortions for three, four and five alternatives with computer modelling. One of the results is: contrary to the results for the degree of manipulability estimations the most stable rule is the rule that requires less information from preferences when calculating final results — threshold rule. With more alternatives the difference between this rule and rules that require information about the whole ranking is more visible. So, for the rules that require less information the probability to influence the results goes down when the number of alternatives increases. Another result: the resoluteness (weighted average number of alternatives in the final outcome) is positively correlated with the stability of aggregation procedures. Threshold rule is the best one for the most cases when we consider both stability and resoluteness.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
20.00%
发文量
33
期刊介绍: Key Journal''s objectives: bring together economists of different schools of thought across the Russian Federation; strengthen ties between Academy institutes, educational establishments and economic research centers; improve the quality of Russian economic research and education; integrate economic science and education; speed up the integration of Russian economic science in the global mainstream of economic research. The Journal publishes both theoretical and empirical articles, devoted to all aspects of economic science, which are of interest for wide range of specialists. It welcomes high-quality interdisciplinary projects and economic studies employing methodologies from other sciences such as physics, psychology, political science, etc. Special attention is paid to analyses of processes occurring in the Russian economy. Decisions about publishing of articles are based on a double-blind review process. Exceptions are short notes in the section "Hot Topic", which is usually formed by special invitations and after considerations of the Editorial Board. The only criterion to publish is the quality of the work (original approach, significance and substance of findings, clear presentation style). No decision to publish or reject an article will be influenced by the author belonging to whatever public movement or putting forward ideas advocated by whatever political movement. The Journal comes out four times a year, each issue consisting of 12 to 15 press sheets. Now it is published only in Russian. The English translations of the Journal issues are posted on the Journal website as open access resources.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信